Stephen S. Miller v. Director of Atascadero State Hospital, 8:20-cv-01035

Miller was convicted in 2007 in Orange County of first‑degree residential burglary and receiving stolen property, with findings of a violent felony and multiple prior serious/strike convictions; he received a 27‑year sentence.
California Court of Appeal affirmed in 2009; California Supreme Court denied review.
Miller filed a federal habeas petition in 2010 challenging the 2007 convictions; the district court denied that petition on the merits in 2011.
Miller filed additional federal petitions in 2016; this court dismissed them as unauthorized second or successive petitions.
In March 2020 Miller filed the instant § 2254 petition (transferred to this court), again challenging the 2007 convictions and seeking credit/removal of enhancements based on "new laws" and claims about counsel at sentencing.
The court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed as second or successive; Miller failed to produce Ninth Circuit authorization or other proof sufficient to avoid the successive‑petition bar, so the court dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instant § 2254 petition is second or successive	Miller: claims "new laws" and "new propositions" make this a new claim and he has permission from CA Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit	Respondent: prior 2010 petition was adjudicated on the merits; Miller has not shown Ninth Circuit authorization	Court: Petition is second/successive because it challenges same 2007 convictions previously adjudicated; dismissal required absent 9th Circuit authorization
Whether Miller showed appellate authorization to file a successive petition	Miller: asserts permission but submitted no appellate order or proof	Respondent: no proof of authorization; district court lacks jurisdiction without it	Court: Miller failed to produce the required Ninth Circuit authorization; dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (holding that a petition raising claims covered by intervening law can still be second or successive)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petitions absent court of appeals authorization)
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (AEDPA requires appellate authorization before district courts may consider successive petitions)
McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing final adjudication as threshold for successive petition treatment)
Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2016) (overview of successive‑petition principles under AEDPA)
In re Korean Air Lines Co., 642 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2011) (judicial notice of prior proceedings)
Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining the mailbox rule for constructive filing)